Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Pulido


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   merge to Bill Oakley. Filest (aktl) 09:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Rachel Pulido

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

WP:BIO, not notable Alan  -  talk  21:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - she wrote two episopes of The Simpsons - or merge with her husband's at Bill Oakley. I tried some searches at Google, and while there are lots of Ghits], many are fluff. Bearian (talk) 03:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * two episodes of the Simpsons, out of 1000 episodes. I wouldn't call that notability Alan  -  talk  04:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - no coverage about her, and no evidence of any significant awards for her work. Being a writer for the Simpsons is not automatic notability.  And even less so when it's two episodes. -- Whpq (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect to Bill Oakley - When I was doing some The Simpsons BLP clean up last month, I found pretty much zero coverage for Pulido. Gran2 20:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * weak keep I have added several references. She was apaprently a staff write for two years, and so no doubt contributed to more than three episodes (I found a source crediting her with a third.) DES (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge to Bill Oakley. Definitely doesn't deserve an article of its own. Nageh (talk) 08:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.